US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China
US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China
The US government seized nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian crude oil allegedly bound for China, according to newly unsealed court documents and a statement released by the Department of Justice on Friday.
You're viewing a single thread.
The legal grounds: The oil was shipped by a US company in violation of US law. American companies can't do business with an organisation that the US government has designated as a terrorist organisation. Thus American authorities siezed the ship and its cargo.
The worlds largest terrorist state gets to dictate who is terrorist?
When you're running your company on US soil, yeah.
Yep. Anyone can do that, actually. I can declare you a terrorist. It's totally my right to do so, but the question is–so what? What am I going to do about it?
The US government has declared the Iranian organisation a terrorist organisation. What have they done about it?
The amount of outrage on this thread is just ignorant people learning how international geopolitics and the concept of absolute state sovereignty work for the first time. Yes, it is the case that big countries get to stick their fingers into the business of little countries. Yes, it is unfair. But that's how it is and that's how it's always gonna be for the foreseeable future. That's how it always has been for all of human history. From Ur to Rome to Vienna to London to Washington. From Chang'an to Beijing to Nanjing to Tokyo and now back to Beijing. In the next century maybe it will be some other country kicking around everyone else instead of the US. But I can practically guarantee that there will be kicking and there will be people continuing to complain about how unfair it is, because it is and always has been.
I'd like to say we should do better as a species, but in reality, what we have now is really fucking amazing compared to when Genghis Khan would come romping around town destroying your villages and murdering your people, or the Romans coming and demanding fifty talents of silver by sunset or else, or the Belgians planting rubber trees in your backyard.
we should do better as a species, but in reality, what we have now is really fucking amazing
I always say this when people say we should burn it all down. Sometimes they say it flippantly but some people actually think it's a good idea to hit the reset button. Like it's a good idea to go back to subsistence agriculture and hunter gatherer lifestyle. No, thanks, overall, things are actually going really well all things considered.
Realpolitik go brrr
State actors, by definition are not terrorists.
Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it's bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that's definitely not a uniform definition.
the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
- Britannica
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.
- Wiki
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
- Collins English Dictionary
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes... government or resistance to government by means of terror.
- Webster's
America has caused the deaths of around 4.5 million people in the middle east since 9/11
The US is a terrorist state
If China sanctioned the US as a terrorist state and discovered a Chinese company was illegally selling oil to the US, would you be upset with the Chinese government bringing that company to court? And would you say it's wrong that as part of the court proceedings, the company in violation agrees to ship the oil to a Chinese port, for the Chinese government to seize?
If that sounds acceptable to you, you should really consider why you find it unacceptable and propaganda when the roles are switched.
Im not disputing that, I was asking for the rational behind the worlds largest terrorist state (the US) trying to dictate who is and who isnt a terrorist.,
Why is this person getting upvotes for clearly lying. Empire Navigation is based in Greece. Here’s more info: Source.
But the company pleaded guilty...
Yes. And were fined. But that’s perfunctory so that they can make more money smuggling oil. The sanctions are solely enforced by the U.S., without consent of the UN.
Yes.
Your own link argues against you:
"But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "
At the time the ship was being used for moving US sanctioned oil, it was own by a US company. That supports @[email protected] 's statements.
That is correct and why they could prosecute this case. But they have been seizing oil since 2019. And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies, it still doesn’t change the fact that this amounts to piracy. Defending international injustice with legalese doesn’t absolve what this is. When China seizes our tankers because the parts were made in China, will you defend them?
And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies,
If the tankers or company is operating in the US, then they are bound by US laws no matter where they are in the world. A company can't benefit from the protection of the US government and laws at home only to go abroad to commit US crimes.
Many countries can use that justification. Why are you defending an act that you’d condemn if it was done to America?
You're really committed to the act, even after multiple people have pointed out your error in reading this situation. Kudos to you I guess?
It’s not an act. I care about this world I live in. I don’t debate to convince the people that disagree with me. I do it to show that those people don’t use logic and reason to decide their beliefs. They want the illusion of confirmation bias. I try to disrupt that illusion. We need to see the world from different perspectives.
I hate that "confirmation bias" have become moo words with people nowadays.
The logic is pretty sound:
- A company that does business in the United States must comply with American laws.
- It is forbidden under American law for a company that operates from the United States to do business with Iran.
- The company, through its child, shipped oil from Iran.
- American authorities, enforcing American law, ordered the company to divert the ship and turn over the oil for confiscation because the shipment was illegal.
- Oil is confiscated.
I remark that sanctions do not require the approval of the United Nations. Under customary international law, it is an application of sovereign authority. Any country can apply sanctions and can do so in any way you like. What the USA has said is that "if you want to do business here, we forbid you from doing business with Iran".
china? is that you?
I’m an American that actually wants my country to act like the things it says it stands for.
you're a liar
You know I’m not.
The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes.
The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil
The legal grounds: it is ok when we do it. This is just old fashioned piracy, but of course you'll try to justify it.
The ship was not intercepted by the Navy. They served a court order on the company and the company turned the ship back and its cargo was seized